Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use the
infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it proportionately more.
An example is the long commute the less well off have to endure to get to
their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for these things comes from the
better off.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
heh... ok... well, if we take away all redistribution of wealth, for
example, we would basically eliminate the super-highways in the US. We
would eliminate the military, as well.

I don't consider infrastructure and military expenses to be
"redistribution of wealth." In fact, I've never heard it referred to in
that manner.

If we take more money from someone who is more well-off than someone who
is less well-off either by percentage

The odds are that the well-off person is more likely to use infrastructure
to a greater degree than those who aren't so well-off.

or in a flat-tax fashion, we're basically redistributing the cost of
these vital services. Now, I think it's worth talking about if this is
viable. I don't think it is as a step toward a more fair system of
taxation.

Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid, etc.
Of course you are right in that taxation is the means for such
redistribution.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

heh... ok... well, if we take away all redistribution of wealth, for
example, we would basically eliminate the super-highways in the US. We
would eliminate the military, as well.


Maxprop wrote:
I don't consider infrastructure and military expenses to be "redistribution
of wealth." In fact, I've never heard it referred to in that manner.


You keep saying you got good grades in Econ 101, then you
say ignorant BS like this.

When the gov't takes money away from citizens and/or
business, and then spends that money on things that the
citizens and/or businesses would not have (or *could* not
have) bought on their own, then that is "redistribution of
wealth."

In other words, ALL governments redistribute wealth. It is
essential to the function of government. The only question
is, does this or that particular gov't do so wisely or unwisely?



The odds are that the well-off person is more likely to use infrastructure
to a greater degree than those who aren't so well-off.


Exactly... which is one reason (among many) that progressive
taxation of income is inherently fair. The only question is,
how steep should we make the curve?




Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid, etc.

Of course, because you use it as a buzz-word for rallying
goose-stepping igno-fascists such as yourself. This has
nothing to do with what it really means.

DSK

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Dave wrote:
A silly argument on both sides.

Not at all.

On one side, we have use of words with some degree of
accuracy, on the other side we have enflamed illogic &
buzz-words. It's sort of like discussing "sailing" with
somebody who thinks that untying dock lines & motoring
around within a mile of one's slip is the ultimate in
sailing achievement & skill.



The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words.

Agreed.
However, when one participant displays such ignorance &
prejudice that there's really no way he's going to be able
to participate, then why not just provide a little
motivation for him to do some further study before jumping
into the ring?


.... It's over whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security, Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy.

Not quite on target, since there is literally no way (short
of a violent coup) the U.S. gov't is going to shed those
programs. That leaves intelligent & reasonable discussion to
the amount & specifics of these programs.

Now go ahead and accuse me of making ad-hominem attacks.
It'll make you feel better.

Regards
Doug King

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Well, we have specific laws and/or rules and regs that determine how money
is allocated to the military and to the infrastructure. Why are you limiting
the discussion to the more devisive welfare/social security question??

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:46:08 -0400, DSK said:

On one side, we have use of words with some degree of
accuracy, on the other side we have enflamed illogic &
buzz-words. It's sort of like discussing "sailing" with
somebody who thinks that untying dock lines & motoring
around within a mile of one's slip is the ultimate in
sailing achievement & skill.



The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words.

Agreed.

However, when one participant displays such ignorance &
prejudice that there's really no way he's going to be able
to participate, then why not just provide a little
motivation for him to do some further study before jumping
into the ring?

You weren't listening to Humpty Dumpty.

.... It's over whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security,
Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy.

Not quite on target, since there is literally no way (short
of a violent coup) the U.S. gov't is going to shed those
programs. That leaves intelligent & reasonable discussion to
the amount & specifics of these programs.

I really expected the reader to understand that when I said "whether
specific laws...are wise policy" he would understand I was referring to
the
laws as presently in effect. By talking about "shedding" those programs
you
create an artificial and unnecessary dichotomy. There are, of course,
alternatives to outright repeal of those laws.

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use the
infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it proportionately more.
An example is the long commute the less well off have to endure to get to
their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for these things comes from the
better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and placing it
in another's.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
heh... ok... well, if we take away all redistribution of wealth, for
example, we would basically eliminate the super-highways in the US. We
would eliminate the military, as well.


Maxprop wrote:
I don't consider infrastructure and military expenses to be
"redistribution of wealth." In fact, I've never heard it referred to in
that manner.


You keep saying you got good grades in Econ 101, then you say ignorant BS
like this.

When the gov't takes money away from citizens and/or business, and then
spends that money on things that the citizens and/or businesses would not
have (or *could* not have) bought on their own, then that is
"redistribution of wealth.

In other words, ALL governments redistribute wealth. It is essential to
the function of government. The only question is, does this or that
particular gov't do so wisely or unwisely?

Nice obfuscation, Doug. But you and Jon know very well that's not what the
discussion is about. It's about taking money (um, that would be *personal*
wealth) from individuals and giving it to others (personal entitlements).
It's a liberal concept fostered by welfare and other BS entitlement
programs. Socialism is a rather succinct example of such redistribution of
wealth. And you liberals just love your socialist ideology, doncha.

The odds are that the well-off person is more likely to use
infrastructure to a greater degree than those who aren't so well-off.


Exactly... which is one reason (among many) that progressive taxation of
income is inherently fair. The only question is, how steep should we make
the curve?

Some prominent democrat senators and congressmen were asked by a media
pundit some years back if a 100% marginal tax rate would be fair at the very
highest levels of income. They all replied in the affirmative. Talk about
blatant stupidity. Where exactly does the marginal tax rate obviate the
desire to excel and accumulate wealth? Of course you left-wing numbskulls
aren't concerned about such things, are ya.


Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid, etc.

Of course, because you use it as a buzz-word for rallying goose-stepping
igno-fascists such as yourself. This has nothing to do with what it really
means.

Only insipid, Kool Aid-drinking, Yugo-driving, liberal,
we-know-what's-better-for-you-than-you-do fascisti such as yourself would
obfuscate the issue with such pseudo-intellectual prattle. Of course you
have to do so, because you have no valid argument to the contrary.
Redistribution of personal wealth is a concept you leftists love, but can't
support by any logical means. If you were twice as bright as you think you
are, you'd still be stupid.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:51:09 -0400, DSK said:

Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid,
etc.

Of course, because you use it as a buzz-word for rallying
goose-stepping igno-fascists such as yourself. This has
nothing to do with what it really means.

A silly argument on both sides. Take a lesson from Humpty Dumpty.

The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words. It's over whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security,
Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy. Discussing what the
meaning
of "is" is may generate a great deal of heat, but it generates no light.

I wasn't the one who brought up the definition issue--Jon and Doug did that
all by their lonesomes. You seemed to have had no trouble grasping the gist
of the issue, as I presented it. Jon and Doug obfuscated the issue with the
definition game because they have no valid argument against my original
premise, that redistribution of personal wealth is a concept loved by the
left and despised by those who have achieved a degree of success by their
own lights.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Dave wrote:
A silly argument on both sides.

Not at all.

On one side, we have use of words with some degree of accuracy, on the
other side we have enflamed illogic & buzz-words.

Is a term a "buzz-word" only if you find it to your disliking as it is used?
You tend to define the term "fascist," my young pedant.


The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words.

Agreed.
However, when one participant displays such ignorance & prejudice that
there's really no way he's going to be able to participate, then why not
just provide a little motivation for him to do some further study before
jumping into the ring?

When one participant has no defense for his argument, he launches into a
dispute over definitions. A familiar tactic of the intellectually bereft.

.... It's over whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security,
Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy.

Not quite on target, since there is literally no way (short of a violent
coup) the U.S. gov't is going to shed those programs. That leaves
intelligent & reasonable discussion to the amount & specifics of these
programs.

Or the expansion of similar programs, and the love-affair the left has with
such giveaways. It's the primary vote-getter for them, afterall. Without
the ignorant and impoverished welfare-style entitlement recipients
(generall those at the bottom of the voter food chain) the democrats would
be hard pressed to garner 25% of the popular vote.

Now go ahead and accuse me of making ad-hominem attacks. It'll make you
feel better.

No point. I've simply learned to return fire with ad hominems. It's far
easier that way, since you are so stupidly blind to your own faux pas, or at
least in a continual state of denial.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Does welfare or social security do that? I haven't written any checks lately
to any homeless. Have you?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use the
infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it proportionately
more. An example is the long commute the less well off have to endure to
get to their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for these things comes
from the better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and placing
it in another's.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, we have specific laws and/or rules and regs that determine how money
is allocated to the military and to the infrastructure. Why are you
limiting the discussion to the more devisive welfare/social security
question??

Let's see--could it be because that was the segment of such allocations that
we were discussing?

If we were discussing pit bulls, would you infer that everything said
applied to border collies and golden retrievers, too?

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

On the contrary. I have no interest in taking money out of the pockets of
the rich and giving it to the poor. I do have an interest in my fellow human
beings, and I would like to think that most people here have enough humanity
to give someone help if they truly need it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:51:09 -0400, DSK said:

Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid,
etc.

Of course, because you use it as a buzz-word for rallying
goose-stepping igno-fascists such as yourself. This has
nothing to do with what it really means.

A silly argument on both sides. Take a lesson from Humpty Dumpty.

The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words. It's over
whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security,
Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy. Discussing what the
meaning
of "is" is may generate a great deal of heat, but it generates no light.

I wasn't the one who brought up the definition issue--Jon and Doug did
that all by their lonesomes. You seemed to have had no trouble grasping
the gist of the issue, as I presented it. Jon and Doug obfuscated the
issue with the definition game because they have no valid argument against
my original premise, that redistribution of personal wealth is a concept
loved by the left and despised by those who have achieved a degree of
success by their own lights.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
heh... ok... well, if we take away all redistribution of wealth, for
example, we would basically eliminate the super-highways in the US. We
would eliminate the military, as well.


Maxprop wrote:
I don't consider infrastructure and military expenses to be
"redistribution of wealth." In fact, I've never heard it referred to in
that manner.


You keep saying you got good grades in Econ 101, then you say ignorant BS
like this.

When the gov't takes money away from citizens and/or business, and then
spends that money on things that the citizens and/or businesses would not
have (or *could* not have) bought on their own, then that is
"redistribution of wealth.

In other words, ALL governments redistribute wealth. It is essential to
the function of government. The only question is, does this or that
particular gov't do so wisely or unwisely?

Nice obfuscation, Doug. But you and Jon know very well that's not what
the discussion is about. It's about taking money (um, that would be
*personal* wealth) from individuals and giving it to others (personal
entitlements). It's a liberal concept fostered by welfare and other BS
entitlement programs. Socialism is a rather succinct example of such
redistribution of wealth. And you liberals just love your socialist
ideology, doncha.

Please tell us what you would do with the homeless, for example. Should they
be allowed to starve to death on the streets? What about the unwed mother
who is 17, because she didn't have access to information about birth
control. What do we do with her? Is it acceptable to have her prostitute
herself to get food for herself and her child?

The odds are that the well-off person is more likely to use
infrastructure to a greater degree than those who aren't so well-off.


Exactly... which is one reason (among many) that progressive taxation of
income is inherently fair. The only question is, how steep should we make
the curve?

Some prominent democrat senators and congressmen were asked by a media
pundit some years back if a 100% marginal tax rate would be fair at the
very highest levels of income. They all replied in the affirmative. Talk
about blatant stupidity. Where exactly does the marginal tax rate obviate
the desire to excel and accumulate wealth? Of course you left-wing
numbskulls aren't concerned about such things, are ya.

It's pretty easy to claim this, but I don't recall anyone saying something
like this. Even if they did, that certainly doesn't represent my belief and
seems pretty stupid. You're starting to lump us all in with the left-wing
numbskull comment, which seems to be an easy way to avoid the real issue. I
don't think I've called you a right-wingnut lately.


Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid,
etc.

Of course, because you use it as a buzz-word for rallying goose-stepping
igno-fascists such as yourself. This has nothing to do with what it
really means.

Only insipid, Kool Aid-drinking, Yugo-driving, liberal,
we-know-what's-better-for-you-than-you-do fascisti such as yourself would
obfuscate the issue with such pseudo-intellectual prattle. Of course you
have to do so, because you have no valid argument to the contrary.
Redistribution of personal wealth is a concept you leftists love, but
can't support by any logical means. If you were twice as bright as you
think you are, you'd still be stupid.

There's no reason for this type of reaction. I think redistribution of
wealth, as you put it, includes military spending, infrastructure, the space
program, social security, medicare, welfare, more cops on the street, and
all the other services we enjoy or hate from the gov't. Why are you only
talking about the services you don't like?

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

I don't know. I don't know much about dogs.

Why limit the discussion to hot-button issues like welfare. If you really
want to discuss redistribution of wealth, you need to look at the superset.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, we have specific laws and/or rules and regs that determine how
money is allocated to the military and to the infrastructure. Why are you
limiting the discussion to the more devisive welfare/social security
question??

Let's see--could it be because that was the segment of such allocations
that we were discussing?

If we were discussing pit bulls, would you infer that everything said
applied to border collies and golden retrievers, too?

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Please tell us what you would do with the homeless, for example. Should
they be allowed to starve to death on the streets?

Of course not. Nor should they be encouraged to be homeless by programs
that do so. San Francisco's $425 per month compensation to each homeless
person comes to mind.

What about the unwed mother who is 17, because she didn't have access to
information about birth control.

Hogwash. That's akin to implying that there are crooks who are unaware of
Miranda, despite hearing it on TV a million times over the last 20 years.
Yes, there should be programs for unwed mothers, too, but not ones that
encourage such behavior as the current ones do.

What do we do with her? Is it acceptable to have her prostitute herself to
get food for herself and her child?

The *good* folks in Afghanistan seem to believe that's a satisfactory plan.
See above.

It's pretty easy to claim this, but I don't recall anyone saying something
like this. Even if they did, that certainly doesn't represent my belief
and seems pretty stupid.

It was during the Kennedy administration. JFK gave us one of the largest
tax breaks in history, reducing the marginal tax rates substantially. Some
of his House and Senate democrats disputed his move--despite that it did
pass both democrat-controlled houses--and were asked what the maximum
marginal rate should be. One reporter asked a few of them if 100% sounded
okay, to which they nodded their heads. Of course it's stupid.

You're starting to lump us all in with the left-wing numbskull comment,
which seems to be an easy way to avoid the real issue. I don't think I've
called you a right-wingnut lately.

It wasn't directed at you, Jon. And yes, you've been most gracious to us
conservatives of late. My ad hominems are directed at Doug. It's probably
a futile gesture, but I'm hoping that he might begin to see the
pointlessness of name calling.

There's no reason for this type of reaction. I think redistribution of
wealth, as you put it, includes military spending, infrastructure, the
space program, social security, medicare, welfare, more cops on the
street, and all the other services we enjoy or hate from the gov't. Why
are you only talking about the services you don't like?

Redistribution of *personal* wealth. From one's pocket to another's. It's
a basic tenet of communism. Building infrastructure and military might is
not quite the same thing. Conservatives have no objections to military
spending, infrastructure, the space program, and such provided the
expenditures are controlled, monitored, and wise. The $200 hammers and $50
plastic caps for the legs of B-52 cockpit seats are examples of
less-than-wise, uncontrolled, unmonitored spending.

But to answer your question directly, conservatives believe that people
should take care of their own affairs unless they are unable to do so.
Before my father died, he exhausted the entirety of his estate on nursing
home care. I had to make periodic trips to the Medicaid office on his
behalf, and while there I noticed no shortage of young, healthy males and
females, many of them illegal aliens no doubt, collecting their welfare
checks at the window.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
On the contrary. I have no interest in taking money out of the pockets of
the rich and giving it to the poor. I do have an interest in my fellow
human beings, and I would like to think that most people here have enough
humanity to give someone help if they truly need it.

No argument with that. Many people need help to make it though life.
Charities do their part, and should be encouraged to do so by the government
via tax breaks, etc. Individuals should also be encouraged to help their
fellow citizens in need. But Social Security spent more than $50 million
per year in the 1970s and -80s on TV and newspaper advertising aimed at
finding people who might not be aware that they were *entitled* to SS
benefits, despite their financial status. Talk about wasteful spending.
Fortunately that program was halted.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use
the infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it proportionately
more. An example is the long commute the less well off have to endure to
get to their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for these things comes
from the better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and placing
it in another's.

Does welfare or social security do that? I haven't written any checks
lately to any homeless. Have you?

Do you not pay federal income taxes??

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I don't know. I don't know much about dogs.

Why limit the discussion to hot-button issues like welfare. If you really
want to discuss redistribution of wealth, you need to look at the
superset.

Apples and oranges. Not generic to the discussion as I began it.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Sure do. When you write your check, do you leave out the part that goes to
the military and infrastructure? I'm assuming you don't mind that portion of
weath/benefit redistribution, but feel free to correct me.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use
the infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it
proportionately more. An example is the long commute the less well off
have to endure to get to their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for
these things comes from the better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and placing
it in another's.

Does welfare or social security do that? I haven't written any checks
lately to any homeless. Have you?

Do you not pay federal income taxes??

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Not apples and oranges. My tax dollars support a number of wealth
redistribution areas. Perhaps you mean germane not generic? :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I don't know. I don't know much about dogs.

Why limit the discussion to hot-button issues like welfare. If you really
want to discuss redistribution of wealth, you need to look at the
superset.

Apples and oranges. Not generic to the discussion as I began it.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Hold on hoss... tax breaks? Who takes up the slack when some charity gets
the tax break??? You and me. So, putting it off on a charity and then
offering the charity a tax break is a zero sum game.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
On the contrary. I have no interest in taking money out of the pockets of
the rich and giving it to the poor. I do have an interest in my fellow
human beings, and I would like to think that most people here have enough
humanity to give someone help if they truly need it.

No argument with that. Many people need help to make it though life.
Charities do their part, and should be encouraged to do so by the
government via tax breaks, etc. Individuals should also be encouraged to
help their fellow citizens in need. But Social Security spent more than
$50 million per year in the 1970s and -80s on TV and newspaper advertising
aimed at finding people who might not be aware that they were *entitled*
to SS benefits, despite their financial status. Talk about wasteful
spending. Fortunately that program was halted.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Now you're talking about encouragement vs. help via social security and
welfare. Encouragement to not use those services is a fine thing, but that
isn't "germane" to the issue of wealth distribution.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Please tell us what you would do with the homeless, for example. Should
they be allowed to starve to death on the streets?

Of course not. Nor should they be encouraged to be homeless by programs
that do so. San Francisco's $425 per month compensation to each homeless
person comes to mind.

What about the unwed mother who is 17, because she didn't have access to
information about birth control.

Hogwash. That's akin to implying that there are crooks who are unaware of
Miranda, despite hearing it on TV a million times over the last 20 years.
Yes, there should be programs for unwed mothers, too, but not ones that
encourage such behavior as the current ones do.

What do we do with her? Is it acceptable to have her prostitute herself to
get food for herself and her child?

The *good* folks in Afghanistan seem to believe that's a satisfactory
plan. See above.

It's pretty easy to claim this, but I don't recall anyone saying
something like this. Even if they did, that certainly doesn't represent
my belief and seems pretty stupid.

It was during the Kennedy administration. JFK gave us one of the largest
tax breaks in history, reducing the marginal tax rates substantially.
Some of his House and Senate democrats disputed his move--despite that it
did pass both democrat-controlled houses--and were asked what the maximum
marginal rate should be. One reporter asked a few of them if 100% sounded
okay, to which they nodded their heads. Of course it's stupid.

You're starting to lump us all in with the left-wing numbskull comment,
which seems to be an easy way to avoid the real issue. I don't think I've
called you a right-wingnut lately.

It wasn't directed at you, Jon. And yes, you've been most gracious to us
conservatives of late. My ad hominems are directed at Doug. It's
probably a futile gesture, but I'm hoping that he might begin to see the
pointlessness of name calling.

There's no reason for this type of reaction. I think redistribution of
wealth, as you put it, includes military spending, infrastructure, the
space program, social security, medicare, welfare, more cops on the
street, and all the other services we enjoy or hate from the gov't. Why
are you only talking about the services you don't like?

Redistribution of *personal* wealth. From one's pocket to another's.
It's a basic tenet of communism. Building infrastructure and military
might is not quite the same thing. Conservatives have no objections to
military spending, infrastructure, the space program, and such provided
the expenditures are controlled, monitored, and wise. The $200 hammers
and $50 plastic caps for the legs of B-52 cockpit seats are examples of
less-than-wise, uncontrolled, unmonitored spending.

But to answer your question directly, conservatives believe that people
should take care of their own affairs unless they are unable to do so.
Before my father died, he exhausted the entirety of his estate on nursing
home care. I had to make periodic trips to the Medicaid office on his
behalf, and while there I noticed no shortage of young, healthy males and
females, many of them illegal aliens no doubt, collecting their welfare
checks at the window.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Hold on hoss... tax breaks? Who takes up the slack when some charity gets
the tax break??? You and me. So, putting it off on a charity and then
offering the charity a tax break is a zero sum game.

Wrong. If charities can fund the needs of some of the indigent, the
government doesn't have to. Less government spending, less taxation.
(ideally) Charities, inefficient as they sometimes are, have been shown to
be substantially more cost-effective than government programs attending to
the needs of the same needy people.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use
the infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it
proportionately more. An example is the long commute the less well off
have to endure to get to their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for
these things comes from the better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and
placing it in another's.

Does welfare or social security do that? I haven't written any checks
lately to any homeless. Have you?

Do you not pay federal income taxes??

Sure do. When you write your check, do you leave out the part that goes to
the military and infrastructure?

No. Do you leave out the part that goes to welfare, etc.?

I'm assuming you don't mind that portion of weath/benefit redistribution,
but feel free to correct me.

You are correct. I'm more than willing to pay my fair share for
infrastructure, national defense, scientific research, the arts, etc. What
bothers me is contributing welfare funds given to anyone who doesn't need
them, and that includes corporations as well as lazy individuals.

Do you deny that the democratic party has traditionally used giveaways and
entitlements as a vote-getter?

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Not apples and oranges. My tax dollars support a number of wealth
redistribution areas. Perhaps you mean germane not generic? :-)

That's probably what I meant.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use
the infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it
proportionately more. An example is the long commute the less well
off have to endure to get to their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax
for these things comes from the better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and
placing it in another's.

Does welfare or social security do that? I haven't written any checks
lately to any homeless. Have you?

Do you not pay federal income taxes??

Sure do. When you write your check, do you leave out the part that goes
to the military and infrastructure?

No. Do you leave out the part that goes to welfare, etc.?

Of course not. That's my point.

I'm assuming you don't mind that portion of weath/benefit redistribution,
but feel free to correct me.

You are correct. I'm more than willing to pay my fair share for
infrastructure, national defense, scientific research, the arts, etc.
What bothers me is contributing welfare funds given to anyone who doesn't
need them, and that includes corporations as well as lazy individuals.

But, you're paying MORE than your "fair share" for those things. There are
lots of people who don't need scientific research, the arts, etc. Everyone
feels bad when they give funds to people who don't need them or don't
appreciate them. However, it's illogical to say that welfare and social
security should be singled out.

Do you deny that the democratic party has traditionally used giveaways and
entitlements as a vote-getter?

Of course I don't deny it. The Republicans do the same thing. And, lately,
they're much more interested in doing that than the dems. They *control*
Congress and the White House. I don't see any of Bush's claims of smaller
gov't. I do see out of control spending.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Perhaps, but as soon as you offer a tax break, you're taking money out of
our pockets. I don't like how some of the charities function, mixing too
much religion with help. So, I'm supporting a welfare state dressed up like
a charity. It's mostly a zero sum game.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Hold on hoss... tax breaks? Who takes up the slack when some charity gets
the tax break??? You and me. So, putting it off on a charity and then
offering the charity a tax break is a zero sum game.

Wrong. If charities can fund the needs of some of the indigent, the
government doesn't have to. Less government spending, less taxation.
(ideally) Charities, inefficient as they sometimes are, have been shown
to be substantially more cost-effective than government programs attending
to the needs of the same needy people.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:23:03 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

There are
lots of people who don't need scientific research, the arts, etc.

There are? The arts are a HUGE economic engine. Eliminate arts, and we
are in trouble you couldn't imagine.

CWM
You cannot separate arts from science...or sconce from art....life
without either would be unbearable...

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

I was thinking of all the right-wingnuts who can't seem to figure out that
good science is more important than their religious convictions.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:23:03 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


There are
lots of people who don't need scientific research, the arts, etc.

There are? The arts are a HUGE economic engine. Eliminate arts, and we
are in trouble you couldn't imagine.

CWM

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Maxprop wrote:
When one participant has no defense for his argument, he launches into a
dispute over definitions.

OTOH there are people who use terms incorrectly &
ignorantly, and then get all huffy when a kindly person
tries to help them.



Maxprop wrote:
Or the expansion of similar programs, and the love-affair the left has with
such giveaways. It's the primary vote-getter for them, afterall.

Kind of like the way President Bush's give-away program for
churches has been a primary vote-getter for him?

Actually with careful study of the last election, one might
infer that the staunch support of Diebold Corp. is
Bush/Cheney's primary vote-getter, but that's not the issue
under discussion.



.... Without
the ignorant and impoverished welfare-style entitlement recipients
(generall those at the bottom of the voter food chain) the democrats would
be hard pressed to garner 25% of the popular vote.


There's an intelligent & well-reasoned statement for you.

Considering that during the last election, Republican flyers
were being handed around (many being distributed at
churches) that said "Democrats want to force your children
to become homosexuals" and "Kerry has pledged to outlaw the
Bible," one wonders if the Republicans pander to their own
carefully nurtured pockets of ignorance.

DSK

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Maxprop wrote:
Some prominent democrat senators and congressmen were asked by a media
pundit some years back if a 100% marginal tax rate would be fair at the very
highest levels of income. They all replied in the affirmative.

Do you know the definition of "marginal tax rate" Max?

Aside from that, you could ask some "prominent senators &
congressmen" from either party if they would like to have
sex with a goat, and they'd reply in the affirmative. It all
depends on who you choose to ask.

DSK

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:31:34 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote:

I was thinking of all the right-wingnuts who can't seem to figure out that
good science is more important than their religious convictions.

So is art. Eliminate just music, and our economy would probably collapse pretty
quickly. Eliminate religion and the economy would hardly notice.

CWM
Religion funds education and charities. If you eliminated church based
charities you'd have a real mess.

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message

Do you deny that the democratic party has traditionally used giveaways
and entitlements as a vote-getter?

Of course I don't deny it. The Republicans do the same thing. And, lately,
they're much more interested in doing that than the dems. They *control*
Congress and the White House. I don't see any of Bush's claims of smaller
gov't. I do see out of control spending.

Sadly you are right.

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I was thinking of all the right-wingnuts who can't seem to figure out that
good science is more important than their religious convictions.

Are you a member of the Brotherhood of the Illuminati? g

Max

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Unlike the mess we already have? I have no problem with charities. I do have
a problem with granting charities immense tax write-offs. The Catholic
church comes to mind, as do the Moonies.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:31:34 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

I was thinking of all the right-wingnuts who can't seem to figure out
that good science is more important than their religious convictions.

So is art. Eliminate just music, and our economy would probably collapse
pretty
quickly. Eliminate religion and the economy would hardly notice.

CWM
Religion funds education and charities. If you eliminated church based
charities you'd have a real mess.

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Capt. JG wrote:
Unlike the mess we already have? I have no problem with charities. I do have
a problem with granting charities immense tax write-offs. The Catholic
church comes to mind, as do the Moonies.

United Way, United Fund, The American Cancer Society, the American Heart
Association...they are all tax free as are the Boy Scouts, Firls Scouts
and many other service organizations...start taxing one and you have to
tax them all...and then the burden comes down once again to the
taxpayers anyway so why not just up and quit and become damn Socialists?

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Yes, they're all tax free, but it seems like there should be some limits and
stiffer requirements. Some of the charities only really give a small
percentage of what they bring in to the people they claim they're helping.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
Unlike the mess we already have? I have no problem with charities. I do
have a problem with granting charities immense tax write-offs. The
Catholic church comes to mind, as do the Moonies.

United Way, United Fund, The American Cancer Society, the American Heart
Association...they are all tax free as are the Boy Scouts, Firls Scouts
and many other service organizations...start taxing one and you have to
tax them all...and then the burden comes down once again to the taxpayers
anyway so why not just up and quit and become damn Socialists?

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Capt. JG wrote:
Yes, they're all tax free, but it seems like there should be some limits and
stiffer requirements. Some of the charities only really give a small
percentage of what they bring in to the people they claim they're helping.

The Catholic Church is not one of those...Catholic hospitlas alone
provide emergency room and outpatient care to thousands...plus all the
other charities they support...my sister works for Catholic SOcial
Services where she lives giving classes on foster parenting. The amount
of free services, counseling, etc. given out by that one agency is
staggering. And I imagine in large cities it would be even more so...

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
It would be barely noticed by the economy. Art DRIVES the economy.


Umm, yeah sure it does.

Dave wrote:
Depends very much on what you want to include in the term "art."

Maybe he's including raw materials, services, or technology
products? Question: did Bill Gates or J.Paul Getty make huge
fortunes by producing art?

...... Much
as I like the City's 2 operas, its museums, the Philharmonic, the
ballet and the theaters, they, and their corresponding institutions in
other states could completely disappear with minimal overall financial
impact.

Prob'ly the museums & the theaters draw in a lot of tourists
who bring dollars... this may be what Charl(krust)ie was
thinking. Still, is this one of the largest factors in the
cities economy?

DSK

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:31:26 -0400, katy wrote:

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:31:34 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote:

I was thinking of all the right-wingnuts who can't seem to figure out that
good science is more important than their religious convictions.

So is art. Eliminate just music, and our economy would probably collapse pretty
quickly. Eliminate religion and the economy would hardly notice.

CWM

Religion funds education and charities. If you eliminated church based
charities you'd have a real mess.

It would be barely noticed by the economy. Art DRIVES the economy.

Art ...You mean like Govt money given to some dip**** to take pictures
of a crusifix in a jar of **** kinda art? Or action adventures made by
derranged self centered drunken has beens religious nuts?

That drives your economy not mine.

Oil drives the economy.
1.50 gas by T-Day?
Happy voters?

Joe


CWM

Liberals Rally Around Bush
 

Joe wrote:
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:31:26 -0400, katy wrote:

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:31:34 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote:

I was thinking of all the right-wingnuts who can't seem to figure out that
good science is more important than their religious convictions.
So is art. Eliminate just music, and our economy would probably collapse pretty
quickly. Eliminate religion and the economy would hardly notice.

CWM
Religion funds education and charities. If you eliminated church based
charities you'd have a real mess.
It would be barely noticed by the economy. Art DRIVES the economy.

Art ...You mean like Govt money given to some dip**** to take pictures
of a crusifix in a jar of **** kinda art? Or action adventures made by
derranged self centered drunken has beens religious nuts?

That drives your economy not mine.

Oil drives the economy.
1.50 gas by T-Day?
Happy voters?

Joe

CWM

Marketing and the fashion industry are just two of the areas that are
art-based...if either was eliminated, the economy would dive....